Skip to main content

JavaFX.com

Posted by joshy on May 6, 2008 at 10:59 PM PDT

We launched JavaFX.com today. I'm very excited about this site since I was personally involved in putting it together. We have videos of the JavaFX demos from each keynote as well as explanations of what JavaFX is, where you can get more info, and a signup page to get the SDK when it's ready.

Okay, back into the fray. I'll see you tomorrow

Comments

<p><br /> I think it's a computer generated design, but i ...

I think it's a computer generated design, but i am sure it'll have great look in it original form. glass dining table

The site still not rendering good on IE 6. and also has javascript errors KISS

To be honest - I think the site's a bad showcase for JavaFX (full disclosure: At my company we use and like Flex :-). I'm using Firefox 2 on Windows XP with JDK 1.6u5.
  • I personally find the grey background color a bad choice - it's bland. If you were going for the brushed aluminum style (like iTunes), I believe you should have used lighter gray with more gradients.
  • The fonts are too small for my taste (and I don't wear glasses), especially the ones on the windows in the background.
  • It's nearly impossible to read the slightly lighter gray "subtitles" on the right hand side below the headings. But it gets worse when you mouse over them because then you get black subtitles on top which are even harder to read on a dark gray background.
  • You have various windows / panels, and I think most users expect to be able to close them to see everything behind them. But you can't (or at least I didn't find a way to do so), you need to move the window out of the way.
  • Earlier today, nearly none of the movies actually played - I just got a Quicktime icon and that was it. Users are spoiled with pretty much instant Flash video playback. Now the movies actually play a bit sometimes before not being loaded anymore.
  • One window states "If you like your gaming fast and hot" and boasts hardware 2D and 3D rendering, but the game shown looks just plain horrible, more like C64 (for the younger ones - that machine came out in 1982). Flex beats this leaps and bounds with softwarre rendering alone (see http://blog.alternativaplatform.com/ru/files/2008/04/bunker.swf).
  • When I move the cursor below the windows, then my cursor turns into the "Wait cursor" (arrow with hourglass). Somehow Firefox seems to think the page isn't loaded yet.
  • The "Audio and Video" window has a lonely "next:" at the bottom which doesn't seem to belong there.
All in all, I think the site could use more polish. You target JavaFX at designers, but I'm not sure they'll be too impressed with what they see. This is a shame - I want both JavaFX and Silverlight to be strong competitors to push Flex forward.

I see some problems even with Safari: for instance the small text in the paragraph is unreadable.

The site doesn't render correctly with Firefox on Linux... It renders, but looks fugly, which I guess isn't good for a JavaFX showcase site?

hi Josh, the site looks pretty cool :) can't wait to check it at home since here i've got old firefox version and restricted privileges to install plugins. keep going ;)

I have to echo the comments here. I have been following JavaFX developments closely recently and was looking forward to some exciting news coming out of JavaOne. Unfortunately any impact which may have come out of the launch of javafx.com has been lost because of the basic usability problems with the site. It is also frankly embarrassing that this is meant to showcase the technology, as the old cliche goes, you don't get a second chance to make a first impression. This is a real shame and disappointment and I feel really sorry for the JavaFX team who have obviously been working very hard in the run up to JavaOne. Let's hope that things improve from here.

I love Java and am very interested in it, but this site is extremely disappointing. It does not render correctly in Firefox 2, IE7, or Opera 9.25. Did it go through QA at all?

There seemes to be some font issues on Windows 2000/Firefox. The fonts are not anti-aliased which makes them look very bad.

Also, I don't think the site loaded completely because not all the icons came up until I started moving the windows around.

Rather disappointing to see a beta website rushed into production. JavaFX has too many great competitors to allow things like this.

Hi Josh. Sorry to come down hard on the site since I've always looked up to you guys but .. How are we supposed to take JavaFX seriously when the showcase site looks this? Forget the choice of colors and fonts. The page does not come close to rendering correctly in Firefox or IE. Please check out the Flex and Silverlight sites, they get you excited about investing the time to learn their technologies. I am a long time Swing developer, and often feel that Sun does not care very much about us and gives us just enough to not loose us completely. I question the commitment to RIA's that Sun has given the resources that seem to be available to you. I'm stuck using Swing, all of my companies applications are written in Swing and I don't have the resources to re-write them. Can you imagine me taking risking the same with JavaFX?

jdevp2 Well, depending on what you want to do there may be other options. There is open source software which will convert a series of stills into a movie, which you could then play using JMC. What is your actual use case?

Josh, that's exactly what I did with another project. In that case, I had to create a player in order to play back the images and sound. I was hoping that I could save it as a standard video format such as FLV.

jdevp2 If you want to play a stack of images like a video then you can do that pretty easily in code by just drawing the image, waiting a few milliseconds, then drawing the next image. I would recommend using the new animation classes in the scenegraph project to assist with the timing/threading. I believe that JMF can also do this, but I'm not sure.

Thanks Josh for the clarification on the media part for JavaFX. For my next project, I‘ll need to able to create video clips from a stack of images. It’s hard to do with what we have today with Java. I just ordered a few Flex books to start learning Flex. It’s a very slow process to pick up another technology. I would love to stay with Java if there is a solution for it so that I don’t have to explore another piece of technology. I’m encouraged by the recent development of Java on desktop, consumer JRE, On2 and etc. It’s particularly exciting to know that JDK is now the core package shipped with latest Ubuntu and Fedora so we don’t have to worry about deployment of Java in Linux world.

Josh - many thanks for getting the open source thing clarified! I'd noticed the changes, and had already updated my blog to reflect that. Simon

jdavi: indeed. Once JavaFX final ships with new codecs from On2 I plan to rewrite the JavaFX.com website entirely on JavaFX.

psynixis the FAQ was mistaken and we have updated it. Please check again. And if that doesn't convince you then how about this from Sun's CEO: JavaFX will, like all of Sun's software platforms, be made freely available as open source, and it'll be released via the GPL (v2) license.

jdevp2: the video support in JavaFX is called JMC, or Java Media Component. It is completely new and does lots of things that JMF couldn't do, such as use natively installed codecs. It also is smaller and faster. In addition, we announced a partnership with On2 to provide new crossplatform codecs. Media on the Java platform has just been given a whole new life.

willismorse: I'm afraid I don't have the answer to your question yet. As the revised FAQ states: " [we] will be rolling out our open source strategy for JavaFX concurrent with the release of version 1 of JavaFX Desktop this fall." Please check back at openjfx.dev.java.net soon for more updates.

Josh - Does this mean that JavaFX (and all of its subprojects like Scenegraph) will have the classpath exception on GPL so we can use it commercially in non-GPL products?

Hi Joshua,

About the videos, I can understand why you didn't follow the "flash road" but what about Fluendo? http://www.fluendo.com/products.php?product=applet
It is all java and looks to me that the closest that you can provide today to the future On2 promise, you don't need anything outside java!!

Cheers JD

Josh, feeling that the JavaFX site is "different, extreme, and over the top" is your right - I think it's a rather ugly, grey site. But no matter what, a site should still be usable, so putting up small, hard-to-read fonts (they still are - the ones on the right hand side, and the "windows in the background" fonts are "un-readable"), being inconsistent (mouse over the the "Contact Us" line to get a yellow pop-up which is good to read, mouse over any other line to get a grey on grey pop-up which is harder to read), and not conforming with user expectations (windows can't be closed) is not a good usability in my mind. I also think you're wrong about video - the best Internet video out there is Flash, because it has the highest penetration (http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer/version_penetrat...), is available on Windows, Mac and Linux and can play nearly instantly (loads a lot faster than Quicktime). Does Youtube use Quicktime? Exactly. Interestingly enough, you could even use On2 codecs for Flash - I guess similar to the ones Sun just licensed for JavaFX. :-) Next time you want to impress designers, please don't rush a website out like this.

Josh,

The JavaFX technology is starting to look really great. I'd like to echo what others have said about JavaFX.com. This is intended as constructive criticism. Different is good. Exrreme is good. Great design is even more important though. After all, great design is possibly *the* core brand value of JavaFX... I don't think the site yet qualifies as having great design. To be honest, it's hard to use, and visually unattractive. When the site is powered by JavaFX, it needs to look super-amazing, and super-tasteful and be super-easy to use. No-one likes to tell someone their baby is ugly! So, I think you should take the fact people are criticizing as a sign that people really care about what you're doing, and want it to be a success.

Also if JavaFX is all about re-inventing client Java, at some point, Sun is going to have to explain why the company plans to make JavaFX mostly closed source. After all, Java is supposed to be about open source. This make the messages coming out of Sun on JavaFX inconsistent and unclear. I think it's a big problem, because this kind of confusion is going to put a lot of people off. I've blogged about this.

JavaFX may be cool, but this site is a disaster - it depends on (cough! argh! puke!) Quicktime. At least on Windows, QuickTime is a major piece of crap, I will NEVER install that thing for any reason. Wouldn't a JavaFX site be supposed to contain applications written with, er, JavaFX?

Wow, just wow man.. You'd attach your name to this thing? Exactly what browser does it even render on? It appears unreadable on FF/XP, IE/XP, Safari/XP, Safari/OS X, Firefox OS X

Any of embedded Quicktime videos not working on firefox 2.0.0.14 & IE 6 over Win XP SP2. In IE 6 over XP all internal windows are cut on left side from top to bottom.

Another problem : the "What is JavaFX" floater says "Across the all screens of your life" which would be quite a good slogan if you swapped "the" and "all" around so that it made sense.

Looks like the site has been fixed. I suspect that there was some initial glitch in the rush to get the site up. It looks great now.

Very disappointed at the media support for JavaFX. Looks like that there is nothing new but some tricks on the old JMF which has not been developed for years. How much do we see JavaFX on Internet after it was introduced a year ago. Why not Flash, isn't that open sourced recently ? Sun needs to act fast to fix those basic issues before more developers start to switch to Flex.

I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner. JavaOne is keeping me pretty busy.

design: let me explain something about the design of the site. JavaFX is about reinventing client Java. To help convey that message we wanted to create a site completely unlike any other site you've ever seen from Sun. Something different, extreme, and over the top. We knew this would be controversial, but we felt it was the right decision.

bugs: We absolutely want this site to run on as many browsers as possible. If you are seeing rendering bugs please post the *exact* version of your browser and operating system and a screenshot showing the problem. We'll get right on it.

video: We went with Quicktime because it offered the most compatibility and highest quality of the video options available today. However, it's not ideal, since QT doesn't support Linux or Solaris. That is why Sun announced a partnership with On2 here at JavaOne to provide high quality video across all platforms and operating systems, not just Mac and Win. I promise that by next year this site will be using JavaFX video.

Josh, the NetBeans circle demo on javafx.com-> is that the compiled JavaFX plugin for NetBeans? If so, did you configure it with soylatte or what?

--Bill

I hate to say that, but the site is ugly as can be. Fonts, colours and all these windows coming and going with videos half loaded... terrible.

I'd rather go for a site everybody can browse, read and understand, and leave the bells and whistles for some cool demos in JavaFX. Or are we trying to communicate that JavaFX is good for developing DHTML sites?... well, if one would consider such site something good.

Frankly speaking, hearing in 2008 the old comment "Java/applet is slow" makes only laugh. Especially when the comparison is with AJAX. I've always seen in my professional life applets deployed in enterprise and industrial applications and they perform their duties pretty well.

Let's try to return to the real world. The real problems with applets are things such as deployment and lack of media codecs. They have been addressed and a few days ago we have been given a precise roadmap, which will consume in a few months. The fact that the first release of this stuff will be given in July makes it clear that they are still working on finishing some stuff, so it should be not a big surprise that there are things not working. The real moment for judging will be when they deliver the 1.0 stuff in fall.

For what concerns the website, I've tried it now and it works really well, being the small font the last evident problem. Even the graphic design now makes more sense and I don't find it bad - of course, Sun should ever listen to people. But please let's be clever in judging the technology: if something doesn't work, ok, let's criticize it. If we don't like the graphic design of the website let's remember that it's up to us, developers, designers, etc... to use it for our aims. If people is so damn good, better than Sun's guys, in doing graphic design, I'm sure that they will deliver some rocking sites.

extremely unintuitive, hard to read (in fact the flyovers are impossible to read because of the bad font size and poor contrast),

And ditch the quicktime player for a native Java one. Why does Sun have to use a 3rd party product on a site showcasing their own products? Doesn't reflect well on Java or Sun.

Oh, running IE7 under Vista, 1680x1050 screen.

Maybe I don't get JavaFX right. Isn't it supposed to operate within a JVM? Why this whole site is built with AJAX / DHTML and not JavaFX? Could it be that your intention was to trick the visitor to think that it is powered by the JVM, when it is powered by the Plain Old Browser instead? ...or could it be that if it was build with JavaFX it would be so dead slow that would scare everybody away (like applets do reliably so many years now)?

You need professional designer like me. Look to my JavaFX site:
Molgav
It simple, it nice, it works.
Sorry